nebulous for people to understand and get engaged with. it happens more successfully on an issue on a school-by-school level. thank you. [applause] . .

>> next, we talk to the newest supreme court justice, sonya sotomayor. her interviews followed by one with the first woman to serve on the accord, former justice sandra day o'connor. >> the moment that i sat down and was able to see the people in the audience, that is what i will intensely remember. there were lawyers that i knew

sitting at the table in front of us ready to argue. watching the intensity of everyone's face -- i had forgotten how much people believe and know that they are affected by the court's decision and you see the anticipation. i can actually say that it is pleasurable. you know in people's faces their concerns. clearly, i knew, besides some part is that people in the room or inwere in, there were peopleo were there. you understand the voices that they are giving you. but when you see their faces, it reinforces that importance in a way that no thing else can.

then there is absolute fear. you do not know what it is like to sit with eight other colleagues. when i was on the circuit court, that was one thing. but to sit on the supreme court and listen to the questions of your colleagues is somewhat humbling. >> you had to have an awareness that everyone in that room anticipated your first question. >> yes. i have gone in prepared with any number of questions, most of them, except for the two that i asked, were asked by two other justices. i did not know what direction my

colleagues were going to go with their questions and what would be left for me to ask. so the questions i asked eventually were a product of the flow of the conversation. >> so filled natural? -- >> so it felt natural? >> i get so intensely engaged in argument that it is never fake. every question i have has a purpose. it has some importance to something that is troubling me or that i am curious about. >> what was that recent weeks like for you with the ceremony and your family coming here to be with you for that and all of the media coverage that you got? were you able to process all of this? >> i have not connected physically with my mind and body it. i am still somewhere out here

looking down and saying, oh, whow. is this really happening to me? that is what it is like. the one question you would not know to ask is what was the most symbolically meaningful moment for me during my public investiture. it was taking the oath with my hand on justice harlan's bible. it was like history coursing through me. it is a interesting admission to make. i do not think that any person can be sure that they are up to the task. and so those moments are, at one

point, incredibly meaningful and, in a different way, incredibly frightening. it is difficult to convey the course in of the motions that both through someone at the moment like that. >> describe where you think your role or largely the role of the court is in our society. >> it always thrills me, amazes me, and gives me faith in our country to know how much people trust the courts. despite the skepticism with which some decisions are received, in the end, i think the american people and the world has confidence that the

nine justices are rendering decisions based on their best ability to arrive at a fair answer under the law. fair being defined as what does the law say? that, to me, it is the most meaningful part of the rule we serve among the three branches of government. the branch that the public looks at tend says that there is an objective viewpoint, there are people who are not a part of a party or not part of an executive branch agenda. they are there to look at this objectively, it in a neutral way, and help us come to a resolution of whenever dispute there may be in an objective

way. it is a real testimony to our founding fathers that they created our branch this way. >> at the same point, coming back to responsibility, it is the last court of appeal. >> it is, very much so. is it not wonderful that we also have the ability to rethink issues over time and look at them and think about them and review them and consider whether the answers we have given should be revisited at any point. it should not be done lightly and it never is. it is a gift to america. >> this is the first time you have sat down with television since your appointment was announced. i wonder if you would not mind, for history, telling us the story of when you get the telephone call.

>> i was told that the president would be making up his mind, making his decision, sometime on monday. i had been sitting in my office from 8:00 a.m. that morning, waiting for a phone call. the phone calls i got instead were from my family telling me or asking me what was happening? i was getting the calls almost hourly. every hour, i would say, i do not know. 2:00 p.m. was arriving and my family had been told that they would have to start moving to the airport shortly. so they were more and more anxious about whether they should be going to the airport or not. my response was -- i do not know.

finally, about 5:00 p.m., at the airport, they are still calling me and asking whether they should get on the airplane. my response was, i still do not know. my brother called me from baltimore. he had to make a stop in baltimore and take a shuttle to washington. he said, should i keep going? i said, if they have not told you to stop, then you should keep going. if it is now 7:00 p.m. i called the white house and said, you're getting my family to washington. have any of you given any thought to how i am going to get their? they stopped and said, oh, i guess we should figure that out, shall we not? that was literally the did response -- the response. i was told that the president

had become distracted with important other business that was going on at the time and that he would call me about 8:00 p.m., but that i should go home and pack to come to washington and that i would prefer not to take an airplane. so i rushed out of my office, home, put a suitcase on my bed and we started packing the suitcase. i called a friend to ask him to drive me to washington. he came or was on his way. at 6:00 p.m., -- at 8:10 p.m., i received a phone call on my cellphone. they said, the president is on the line. >> were you on the road? >> note, i was still packing. -- no, i was still packing. i had my cellphone in my right

hand and i had my left hand over my chest, trying to call my beating heart -- tried to caryio calm my beating heart. he said, the judge, i would like to announce u.s.-election to be the next associate -- i would like to announce you as my selection to be the next associate of the supreme court. i started to cry. i said, thank you, mr. president. >> and then what? >> he asked me to making two promises. -- to make him two promises. the first was to remain the

person i was. the second was to stay connected to my community. and i said to him that those were two easy promises to make because those two things i could not change. and then he would said -- and then he said we would see each other in the morning. >> so you had to drive. >> . >> " was that like? >> it went quickly in part because i was working in the entire time on my speech for the next day. i have a draft that they told me to anticipate making a speech. but i was still working on it. >> it is four hours from new york to washington? >> it took a little longer because a torrential rain started on the drive and it

knocked out power gps. so we got lost. all of a sudden, i am in virginia looking up because i had been scribbling on the piece of paper and making changes. all of a sudden, i looked up and looked at my friends. i said, tom, we are not going into washington. we are going away from washington. we better stop. so we pulled over on the road. i started to calling of a friend and say, please, get on the computer and figure out where we have to get back to where we have to go. i had a law clerk who was driving down. he was from washington. he talked us back onto the road and to the hotel. it was a very busy 5.5 hours close to six hours, between the

rain and getting lost. it was a very eventful mike. >> it sounds like not much sleep. >> no, we arrive in washington and two 30 a.m. i practiced my speech. the last thing i did was to read it and try to committed to memory. three hours later, when i got up, the first thing i did was to give the speech without the papers in front of me. when i was able to do that, i said, i got it. then i was able to shower and get dressed. i chose to be a lawyer and ultimately a judge because i find endless challenge in the complexities of the law. i firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights. for as long as i can remember, i have been inspired by the achievement of our founding

fathers. they set forth principles that have endured for more than two centuries. those principles are as meaningful and as relevant in each generation as the generation before. >> talk to us about how you are setting up your office. >> i have a colleague who is like a brother. he is on the second circuit. when this process was going on, i was getting applications for clerkship. i did not want to jinx the process by becoming involved and thinking about getting clerks. i asked him to go for all of the applications and pick a handful of people that he thought would be suitable for me. suitability was measured by two

things. i want smart people, but i want people who are good people, too. they have to be kind and caring and really smart. >> how did they do? >> he batted 100. i have people who i am absolutely delighted with. i interview them shortly after the hearings concluded. i had pretty much made up my mind. the day that i was sworn in, i was able to call them and they came and started. >> you have had the opportunity -- in history, you're one of the few justices who have served at all three of levels of the court system. that means you have gone through the nomination and confirmation process three times. what is your perspective on how that works for our society today? >> interestingly enough, within

a couple of months of my actual hearings, i had moderated a panel for the federalist society at yale law school. on the panel were a couple of professors and a couple of people involved in the process. each of them had a different perspective on the meaning of the process, fair statement and criticisms about the process. my final question to the panelists was, ok, so what would you do instead of what we do? and they all basically had some minor tinkering or fixes is, as the call them, except for one. one of the panelists looked up and said that the purpose of the nomination process today and the confirmation hearing process is

to introduce a prospective justice to the american people. they can get to know that justice. once the selection is made, most americans will never again have an opportunity to actually hear the justice talk or to learn anything about them until the end of their service. so it gives the american people that chance. i think that is what i learned. he was right. that may be the most important purpose of the confirmation hearings. questions, even over three days, are not going to tell you much about a prospective judge. you have to look at their life's work. that would be a clear reflection of who they are and how they think and what they will do. in the end, though, getting to

know the person is very hard from an artificial setting like a hearing. but over three days, i think you get some sense of what the person is. that does have value. >> you ended up missing 89 united states senators. >> 92. i interviewed with three others after the hearings. before the hearing, it was 89. >> was that necessary? do you look back at that and say that that was time will invested? >> i think i am the first to justice who has met with that many senators. i mean that have been the only, but among the more recent justices, yes. necessary? i do know that i can masteanswet question.

with many senators, i had meaningful conversations. just like for the american people to see, i think it is important for the senators to look at someone in the eye -- to borrow a phrase that one of them used -- and to sit with them and check personally and talk openly. obviously, when one speaks about it openly, there are topics that they would like to cover that i cannot talk about for the very reasons that i explained tduring the hearing. you cannot speak about current issues and would be inappropriate to speak about my personal views. that is not the way i describe a case. i look at the arguments that are presented and what the constitution or statute says and

what president teases us about those things. -- and what precedent teaches us about those things. it gives a day and me an opportunity to talk. i think that is important. >> do you suspect you changed any minds? >> aftra, i do. -- >> actually, i do. there were six unexpected vote. >> you mentioned this last time that the american public sees people after they are sworn in and take a seat on the court. throughout your career, you noted that you have made a special effort to mention the special panel you were on to be invisible. is that something you intend to continue? >> yes.

i think that was part of the president's request of me, to stay a part of my community. my community is not defined in anyway. it is important for justices to help understand our system better and there is no way of doing that unless you're a part of the process of talking with them. i fully expect to stay involved in all of the activities i did before and, i fear, even more now. given the number of invitations i am receiving, i think i have a wider audience now. >> are you intending to make your primary home in washington? >> like many other americans, it would not be wise for me to sell my home in new york because the market is so low. so i am going to keep my home in new york. i think that will be like many other people, have two homes,

one in new york and one in washington >. >> in your biography, you talk about some of the invitation to have gotten. has anyone approached you to write your more or your life story? do you intend to do it? >> eventually. >> many of the justices that we have talked to tell us that it takes years to become comfortable in this court. do anticipate your service on the federal bench that it will take you years to feel comfortable? >> yes. >> why? >> when i started on the district court, i do not think that any start would have that same amount of anxiety, the

learning, the need for reaching deep within yourself to absorb new information. i tell people, in giving a speech, during my first year in the district court, i said, i have finally a understood why the mind is a muscle. there were the days at the end of which, on the district court, after a hit spent the day and conferences where i would be dealing with 25 or 30 different subject areas of litigation, 25 and 30 and sometimes 60 to 100 different legal questions that parties were asking me to rule on. i did not have a headache. i had a brain ache.

it was as if i had stretched to the muscles of my brain to their outer limits with of a broad information that i was asking my brain to observe. i don't think that will ever experience that again. but at each type of judging or process of dredging, there is new information to learn -- process of judging, there is a new information to learn. there are areas or controversies that i was not aware existed. as a circuit court judge, i thought that i had and new about what all of the areas of legal contention were. that is not true. and there are so many new areas of law that i will have to become involved in, new processes that the courts are involved in and that i will have to become aware of. i have no reason to doubt that it will take years to feel some

degree of comfort in this process. >> in the process of getting acclimated, to find that you have any particular mentors? >> all of the justices, all of my colleagues, have been extraordinarily warm and welcoming. each one has offered advice. each one has invited me to call them with questions. i don't know if i can identify any in particular that i have been turning to. actually, it depends on a great deal if i am reading them in the hall. there's always a question on my mind. when i meet them in the hall, i just spoke to them and said, can you or would you? and they have each been delightfully generous in giving me time to walk me through whatever it is that i am asking about. there's not one person yet. they have all been wonderful.

>> do you have any sense on whether or not the workload may be lighter than what you experienced at the appellate level? >> windows on the court of appeals, -- when i was on the court of appeals, most did not have the idea of the workload of the appellate judges. they have little understanding of the burdens of the court. reviewing petitions, of which the numbers have been growing exponentially each year, is an extraordinarily time-consuming process. i have only had an occasion to work on one case so far. but reading the briefs that came in were also quite time consuming. it is too early in my career to talk about it.

but i do not anticipate that it is as light as the public perceives it to be. >> what can your colleagues expect from you in your writing process? >> i welcome the views of my colleagues here in a share with my colleagues ways in which to ensure that each issue we are addressing is also -- and each draft that we are issuing is addressing the important points that the parties are making. what they can expect from me is an interactive colleague, both in welcoming their suggestions and incorporating them into drafts and sharing with them my own views as well. >> do you anticipate doing that as well here? do you intend to work in chambers or do work better in your own environment? >> i work better in chambers.

i like being at my desk and having everything around me. i also like to be able to call out to my law clerks with an idea of or popping out of my desk and coming to them and say, how about this? and engaging them with the idea. i'd like working at my desk. >> -- i do like working at my desk. >> we have learned so much about that room and when the door closes and with the experience is like. what was it like for you? >> there is a real gift in the practice of the court, of letting all of the other justices speak in turn. i did not expect any less. i had my expectations puzzling confirmed, that the justices are very fall full about what they're doing.

each one was very thoughtful about giving their reasons for their vote. as i said, i did not expect any less, but i was very pleased that my expectation was confirmed. >> as the junior justice, you will be the last in line in the go around to make your argument. how do you use that to your advantage? >> my sense is that, if you go in with a plan, it is likely to go awry. when i was a lawyer, i knew that you had to plan everything to the last detail. but the best lawyer was the one who went in and just did what was right at the moment. so that is how i think i will approach everything that i do it in my adjustinthe judging proce. >> justice alito is leaving to

you all of the responsibilities of the junior justice. has he briefed on those things? >> my first day of conference, at the end of confidence, i was having coffee and cookies come in. the court personnel who was helping us with that wanted to open the doors as the justices were leaving. i said, no, you cannot take my job. i just got here. so i jumped ahead to open the door. in fact, that party did not. i have not sat down with him yet on recording the court's decisions. we're going to do that process in the next couple of weeks before the first conference day on the 29th. >> overall, with regard to being

the junior justice, people watch it so carefully, where you sit in the court. why are the traditions that go with that so important to an institution like this? >> why are traditions important in life? traditions are very important to me. holidays, what i do on the holidays, who was banned them with, the roles that each person plays -- who i spend them with, the rules let each person plays -- a tradition anchors us in a process that is greater than ourselves. they remind us that the rule we are playing his money personal role and not a role that should have a personal agenda, but one that has an institutional importance. that institutional importance is bigger than us. i think that that is an important role for tradition,

too underscore that for us. yes, where you sit, what order you sit in, how you go, all of those traditions, all of those practices remind us that ouof or institutional importance. i liked traditions. i think they measure our history and they give us our history to pass on to others. that is what has kept us alive as a nation for over 200 years. it is rare in the history of mankind that any form of government has lasted as peacefully as we have for as long as we have. >> you have referenced in the sense of history streaming through you as you took the

oath and knew that he would be getting this job. do you have touchdowntouchstone? >> i am smiling only because, when you select a justice, there is a perception that you are selecting a judicial philosophy, a way of making decisions. i think there's a danger in that perception. i think that the history of the court is not one individual justice. the history of the court is how each of the justices of the court has contributed a view, a way of writing, a way of thinking, in a way of approaching one topical or another, and that each justice

has made valuable contributions. no justice has defined the court as a whole. i think that is the beauty of this court and that the decisions are not made by just three justice, but by nine now. i will let select just one judge does setting a definition of that history. i would say that it is the combined body of work that i draw from and that we all draw from incoming into decisions in each new case that comes before us. >> we heard of the importance of meeting characters in contemporary culture, like perry mason, where they lead you in a career direction.

would reduce say to someone even now contemplating a career in the law? >> i had not anticipated that question. " i tell people in selecting careers of all is to pick the career that every day gives you some joy in the tasks that you are doing. that sounds simple, but it is very hard. if you like working with your hands, then finding the career that led to do that. that will give you joy. if you like figuring out puzzles and things of that nature, you might like computers. that will give you a moment of joy each day. if you like thinking about

problems that people are having and you like reading in a way to solve those problems, as opposed to sitting in their room and working them up with the person, then you might like to be a lawyer. you can sit in a room and help people talk through their problems and give them a framework to do that in or you could be a judge, like i am., and read about their problems and look through books and figure out how to enter their problems. but, in the end, the device that i give most young people is that the world will let you be a part of everyone's lives. the law affects every part of our society.

as a lawyer or as a judge, you will get to learn about what other people do and you will help them figure out how to do it better. we help solve their problems. that, to me, is the fascination of law. i get to review cases that involve every facet of our society. as a judge, i do not have a voice in resolving those problems. that is decided by the law. but i have a part in that process. i would tell young people that, if you want to follow a career in law, figure out if that will bring you joy. if it will, then follow your hearts during. >> in these early days of your

tenure on the thank you for your time with us. >> thank you. >> for more on the supreme court and the justices, goat to c- span.org/supremecourt. >> get your own copy of c-span's original documentary. it is a three-disc set, including programs on the white house and the capital, many of the items available at c- span.org/store. >> tonight is the final evening ofor a rare glimpse of the supreme court.

>> next, an interview with former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor. >> my calendar has been rather haphazard. i have not set a specific schedule. instead, i have accepted various specific engagements and have adjusted my calendar accordingly. in an ideal world, i think i would do it a little

differently. but it has not settled down yet. i hope it will. i have been involved, as perhaps you know, with some projects concerning educating america in little bit about what the framers of our constitution had in mind when they established an independent judicial branch at the federal level. and think people have lost sight of that overtime. plein-air state's first formed, they followed the pattern set -- when our state's first form, they follow the pattern of the federal government. there was confirmation by a state legislature. it was president andrew jackson who persuaded states to take a different approach. he was a populist.

it was his thinking that the states should elect their judges in popular elections. georgia was the first state to say, yes, that is a good idea and they changed to a popular election of judges. many states follow suit. we can talk more about that later, but it has not been a wonderful development over time. >> i refer back to the book you wrote in 2002. >> yes. >> early on in the book, you talk about the work of art in the supreme court courtroom and hal it always held -- and how it always held important symbolism for you. >> it is the symbolism that the supreme court itself has and

that the court in our country, whose opinions are binding on all of the lower courts. the supreme court is only responsible for deciding issues of the federal law, whether it is statutory or constitutional. a court does not get involved in trying to interpret and apply state law. it is up to the states. but the symbolism is that this is the highest court in the land. the framers created it after studying the great lawgivers and history and taking a look at what they thought, worldwide, was important for the judicial branch to do and how it should be structured. as you know, the court room contains representative figures of great lawgiver is in the

past. that concept was carried forward by the architects with the knowledge that the framers had also considered contributions from the great lawgivers of history. so we have a very majestic court room representing the majesty of the law and the process of governance. >> you write in the book that the first time you really experienced an oral argument was as a brand new sitting justice. >> that is right. >> do you still have strong memories of that day? >> a first day on the court -- my first day on the court, it was such a remarkable feeling to have been sworn in as a justice of the court, a position i never anticipated holding.

i never aspired to that. i did not think it was a realistic desperation and i never spend time thinking about it. all of a sudden, out of the blue, here came inquiries about my availability to talk about a position on the court. that was a shock. i did not believe that it would occur. in the first place, already serving on the court, was one of my classmates from law school, william rehnquist. he had been a good friend. he lived in arizona. i knew his wife as an undergraduate at stanford. there were personal friends of my husband and mine. it was just inconceivable of me that we would be asked to be served at the same time. there are things -- for the

small state of arizona to suddenly have two at the same time, it was unimaginable to me. when i was interviewed by william frank smith and some of the cabinet members in the reagan to administration, i did not believe for a minute that would be asked to serve. i went back to arizona after those interviews and said to my husband, how interesting it was to visit washington, d.c. and to meet the people around the president and, indeed, to meet the president himself and to talk to him. but i said, thank goodness i do not have to go to that job. i did not want it. and i was not sure that i could do the job well enough to justify trying. i have often said that it is wonderful to be the first to do something, but i did not want to be the last. if i did not do a good job, it

might of been the last indeed, when i retired, i was not replaced then by a woman. that gives one pause to think, oh, what did i do wrong that led to this? but i am sure that the future will show that we have other women serving on the court. it is hard to be the only woman on the court, which i experienced for about 10 years or so. in a population which, these days, produces 50% of law school students being women, it is realistic to think of a number of women on the court, not just one. >> back to the initial oral argument, not having come from the federal court system, sitting there and going through that process, what was it like? >> it had a sense of unreality

about it for me. i still not believe that i was the person asked to serve on the court. it just did not seem real. the arguments of the court are not long. there's only an hour allotted per case, normally, unless extended time is permitted. i discover that, indeed, we did have members of the court who liked to has been number of questions. bj who liked to ask a number of questions. -- who liked to ask a number of questions. i was reluctant to ask questions because of my lack of experience in the courtroom at this level.

to learn how often they felt it was a program to us questions and to learn how they asked questions and how the whole process unfolded, i had a high learning curve at first. i had to see how the cases unfold in a courtroom at the oral argument and what was appropriate and what was not. >> are you cognizant of the public in the back or are you conscious of what is going on in the room or do you focus only on the lawyers making the case? >> normally, the focus would be only on the lawyers making the case. there were a couple of times when someone created a bit of a disturbance in the courtroom that was quickly resolved. of course, that would divert your attention. for the most part, people in the audience are very quiet.

the staff of the court escorts them and quietly and explains that they should try to be very quiet while in the courtroom. they're told not to even sit there taking notes. really, the focus is on the lawyers and what they have to say. some focus is on your colleagues if they are asking questions. you are interested in what is that is troubling your colleagues. they can lead you into a new area of inquiry that perhaps you did not have yourself. >> back to your early days of the course, everything you did was rocked with symbolism. we spoke with justice scalia that members of the judiciary continue to wear robes. how did you make the choice about what your role would look like? >> i did not make much of a choice. there were very few roads available. i did not know anyone who made

robes for women justices. most of what was available was something like a choir robe or an academic robe often used for academic processions and graduations at universities. i think that was all that was available. i think i just got what was available and put it on carter was a choice for a woman -- put it on. harder was the choice for a woman for the traditional color. i had a robe and arizona and a path that with me. it was very simple. and did not have the judicial collars in those days in arizona. i just put it on over whenever i was wearing. i was givinen a note from subleasing in the audience of the courtroom. it said, do justice o'connor, i have been in the audience

watching the court today. i noticed that you did not have a judicial collars. all your colleagues were wearing white shirt collars. they showed under the robe. you'd just looked like a watchdog with justice -- like a washed out justice to me. what is happening? i took that to heart. i figured i should find some sort of judicial collars to wear. i did not always have a white shirt under the robe. it was hard to find. nobody in those days made judicial what college for women. i discovered -- white collars for women. i discovered that the only place you could find them were in england. there was a woman who was the first female judge in the state of delaware. she was older at the time. i had met her. she gave me her judicial

collars, which was kind of a lace think that she had acquired somewhere down the line. and that was pretty elegant. so i used that as well. but finding an appropriate judicial collars turned out to be quite a task. >> our cameras have visited the robing room. knowing that the court is full of conditions, can you tell us what the procedure is like? >> on the days of world argument, a bill or buzzer is sounded -- on the days of oral argument, a bell or buzzer sounded. it reminds you that, in 10 minutes, you are supposed to be on the bench. at that point, you need to go down to the robing room and get your robe on and be ready to go into the courtroom at the appointed hour. chief justices do not like to be late, as you can imagine. the robing room has a number of

narrow little sections of the larger cabinet in which the justices wrote or ropes or home and your judicial collars, if you have one, could be on the shelf. there are attendants. you can pick up the road that you are going to put on that day. they will help you into the robe and you get it fastened in front. in my case, then you worry about getting the judicial collars on right, which can be a challenge. then all of the justices walk as they're finished with that into the conference room where we sit around a table and confer upon the case. then it is the custom, happily so, then every justice shakes every other justices and before going into the courtroom.

i think that is a great customer. not all courts do that. i think it is wonderful. if you take someone's hand and shake it, you're much less likely, i think, to hold a grudge. there's something about human contact that matters. >> in the pre-argument conference, what happens there? will you discuss who asks certain questions? >> there is no pre-argument conference. you walk into the conference room and put on your robes and shake every other justices hand. when all minor there and accounted for, the chief justice says it is -- when all of them are there and accounted for, the chief justice says it is time. in a matter of seniority, you are seated. you enter the back of the courtroom and they divide three justices on the left, three in the middle, and three on the right, depending on where you

are going to be sitting. when the chief justice gives the signal to the staff, the gavel drops in the courtroom by the marshall, and people enter. the justices go behind their shares until the formal introduction of the court is made -- behind their sharechairs until the formal introduction of the court is made. >> [unintelligible] >> of course. you're not laughing are talking. you are attentive. then someone behind the chair helps you get your chair seated. the chief justice will normally call for the lawyers who are going to introduce and proposed

admission to the bar of some new member of the bar. that usually occurs first. then the chief justice will call upon the lawyer for the petitioner in the first case. then they come and proceed. there are lights at the podium for the lawyer who is making the argument. when the lawyer has only five minutes remaining, another life goes on. when time is up, a red light goes on. depending on the chief justice, that could be closely observed or somewhat relaxed. when bill rehnquist was chief justice, he made them mature to the time very strictly. >> you mentioned that the bill in order of seniority. we learned that seniority -- you mentioned that you lineup in

order of seniority. we learned that seniority is important. does that make a difference in the way that you approach the argument? >> it depends -- it makes a difference in what part of the line you are in. it does not change anything about the argument or what you do. you still are what you are, one of the justices. some like to us questions and some do not. we have justices that seldom ask questions and we have justices that always ask questions. >> what was your own approach in asking questions? >> i asked what i thought i needed to know. we'll read the briefs before the oral argument. we spend a lot of time in advance with the oral argument -- advent of the oral argument reading. this court, unlike most courts around the world, allow a filing

of a friend-of-the-court brief who want to weigh in on the issue. they can file an application asking to file a friend-of-the- court brief. if it is a timely request and there is no objection, it is granted. we typically have a number of friend-of-the-court briefs in addition to the ones filed by the parties. that means you have done a great deal of reading before ever coming into the courtroom. .

>> you have concluded one thing or another about the case. often times, you still have questions. there is some factual background were some legal position that is being urged. what if the facts were so and so? there are a lot of things that you can ask. >> you talk about justice is having a tentative opinion before the argument is heard. we talk about what has been heard. there is a key to understanding of which direction the final outcome might be. how do you arrive at the final

vote tally on any given case. take us through that. buc>> first of all, let me go bk to the conference discussion on the merits of the case. that is very important that discussion does not take place until later in the week, during which the oral arguments are heard and the nine justices did together around the table in the conference room and talk about the merits of the case. normally, and there is only one discussion that takes place and it is that discussion. sometimes there are cases where there is not a clear consensus and there has to be a second discussion. that is the exception, not the rule. it is that one discussion in the

week of the oral argument. as you have heard, it starts with the chief justice and goes down the line to the junior justice. those discussions lead the justice conclude to affirm or reverse and the particular case. that vote is not casting concrete. you are not walking on my country, yet. you can change your mind. occasionally, a justice will do that, but a writing assignment is made based on that first conference discussion. if the chief justice is in the majority on the case, the chief justice makes a writing assignment to someone in the majority. now, the dissenting view is also typically assigned by the

most senior justice on the dissenting side. but that is in a minority of cases i do not know what it is at present, but normally it runs about 15% or 20% of the cases. now, once the person assigned to write for the majority opinion circulates that opinion, then the other eight have a chance to weigh in. normally, they start within a day or two. they may say that they want to give a little more thought to this. then they say that if you will change this, then i would be able to try. it is something like that that happens. if there is a dissenting opinion to be written, often people will

wait and look at the dissent before they cast their vote. it could be so powerful that it could change someone's you. the details are worked out, not around the conference table, but in the riding of the opinion that the persuasion takes place -- the riding of the opinion that to persuasion takes place -- of the week by king -- the writing of the opinion that persuasion takes place. so, it really occurs in the riding. >> due to enjoy the intellectual portion of the job? >> yes.

deciding your view of the case itself is terribly challenging. some of the issues are really tough. some are not. some are clear-cut. some are enormously challenging. it is a help to see it in writing and it is a help we have to write it to have to put it down in words rather than just think it through. >> were there any particular types of cases that you are most attracted to? >> no. i don't think so. even a case on a subject that you think is kind of boring can turn out to be an enormously challenging at the end of the day. it could be anything. i don't think that subject

matter determines the extent of the interest. is the challenge of solving this particular question of law and making it work. it could be on any subject. >> when the distance -- the dissent's are quite personal, dd you ever take them that way? >> yes, and that the thought it was too unfortunate, i would ask the justice if they really wanted to say that that way. i was not averse to making that request. >> you write about the acceptance of the other died -- by the other justices. is this court much like a family? are there is -- are you friends

outside the building? >> by and large, it is a very collegial group. i was very blessed for 25 years, and here, to be in a court where that was the case. it was not always that way. there are times when certain members of the court had strong antipathy. that would not be a happy time to be here. i was very grateful that people got along pretty well. >> we have just about five minutes left and i have some big questions for you. first, about the building itself, you have come back to a place that you spent a quarter century of your life, what about this is an effectiveness of the symbol? >> the architect thought he had

done such a great job that the u.s. capital should be moved so that people would have a better view of the court. i think that he created a beautiful building, but i did nothing to capital will be moved. this has a beautiful steps in front. it is marble from different places in the united states. you walk through the marble hallway and into the courtroom, which is much like the greek temple design. it is an inspiring area. it is smaller than the light think. there are court of appeals court rooms are larger than this one and the offices of the justices are not large.

there are many circuit court judges and even some district court judges in courthouses around the land that have larger chambers than a justice on the score. it is not size that makes the grand tour of the place. it is what it symbolizes and what goes on here that makes it special. >> do you have any favorite places inside this building that you tend to retreat to? >> there is no place to retreat. the retreat to your arm chambers if you want to get anything done. we have a beautiful library upstairs them if there were a few times when i had to use material from so many cases that we occupied to where three of those tables, leaving the books out so that the law clerks and i could go there and sit in the reading room and referred to all those passages.

that is not often. normally, we can put them on the car and get them downstairs to use them downstairs. in these times, you can find on a computer screen, so you're more apt to use a computer screen. when i first came to the court, we had massive computers that were hard to use. you were not at all attempted to go to your computer. today, they tend to be much easier to use. >> you said that you have been spending a great deal of, open to educate people on the role of the court. will you reflect on the role of supreme court -- of the supreme court of society and what people should know about? >> the supreme court, in general, has been respected by the american people.

i think it has been one of the institutions of government that is most respected. obviously, the legislative branch create mixed impressions among citizens because you have members from both political parties offering very different views of things. the president himself can sometimes be criticized by some groups and admired by others. but the court, in general, has had the respect and admiration of the people. i hope that we can keep it that way. there have been more criticisms of judges that i have heard in the past 25 years and then has been typical in previous years, with a few exceptions. that distresses me.

i think it is time that americans wake up to what it is that the framers had in mind when they tried to create an independent federal judicial branch. and they had particular is a month. -- have particulars in mind. this that was the framers concept. they provided no term of years for this service. it says that federal judges will serve for good behavior. they provided that the salary of a federal judge could not be reduced during that term of service. the framers did not want the other branches of government imposing sanctions on federal

judges by virtue of some decision in which they disagreed. >> he told us that when you came home from the interview, this was a job that you did not think you wanted. now that you have had the job and left it for a few years, could you imagine what life will have been like? >> i have been very privileged to be here and it enabled me to see just what a wonderful institution the supreme court of the united states billy is. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> for more of permission on the supreme court, go to c-span.org supremecourt.

>> get your own copy of the c- span's the original documentary on dvd. it is part of our american icons collection. one of the many items available at c-span.org/store. >> you are watching c-span, brought to you as a public service. coming up next, the economist magazine holds a discussion on the future of innovation and the environment on world affairs. >> saturday, on "washington journal," a discussion with christopher boucek, then dr. david shern on a new law that

takes effect today. later, kevin chavous talks about the state of education. "washington journal," taking your calls in your emails every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> saturday, on "america in the courts," william suter talks about his job. >> fox news contributor michelle walden is our guest this weekend. she will take your calls and emails yourtweets. that is sunday, live at noon eastern. >> that hurts.

my positions are now in a storage bin. what i was able to get out before the house was locked up. >> this weekend, the award winning documentary on the impact of subprime mortgages on minorities. >> now, a look ahead to 2010, hosted by the economist magazine. we will show you for parts of this recent conference starting with for entrepreneurs this is just under one hour. >> sometimes, somebody else's misfortune to lose your benefit

i am in the lucky position of being one of those lucky beneficiaries. meanwhile, i did to spend time with four of my heroes. this is going to be a great treat for me and i hope it will be a great treat for you and the panelists. as we think about 2010, it is great to think about all the innovation that will be happening. these four people are reasons to be optimistic.

and dean cain -- it did not come here by segue, but could have if he had been told to. it is amazing how many different things he is grappling with as an inventor. duane is involved in one of the most innovative creations, which has changed the business world but is also changing the non- profit world through its partnership with the rockefeller formation. lastly, the co-founder of "guitar hero." i've feel that i was born slated to early to really enjoy it.

i was actually put -- and playing the wii for the first time. this is clearly not a bigger business than music and films together. i ran into a bunch of hedge funders that have come out with derivatives to fund the new games. with no further ado, i will ask each of our panelists what they will be doing in terms of innovation next year. >> among the things that we will see over the next few years is biology in our economy. we all rely unclean water and materials from biology.

by my rough numbers, genetically modified stuff has already reached 2% of gdp, which is the really big number. it is growing revenues every year. i think we will begin to see more products derived from a genetically modified systems. in particular, i am interested in the role of scale in biology. the oil industry is enormous because it has to be enormous. it requires large pipes, large ships, a large refining capacity. 95% of the stuff we by every day is derived from petroleum.

i just joined the advisory board of a company that will be introducing perfumes and flavorings and other fine chemicals that are derived from waste by using a ecosystems. >> been? were we be spending your time -- b dean, where will you be spending your time? >> we will be building the next generation of dialysis equipment that will be able to use by individuals at home which would be hugely important to them and usually more cost-effective to our burden system there are

other things that i cannot talk about it. my day job is still continuing to be there to find my fantasies which are supplying clean water to the developing world and to create a box that can do that for 100 people per box. we are working on the point of use deployable elected generation system. we have to villages in bangladesh that have operated on them. we are now running one on biological modified bugs and to your point, rather than reach the scale of the oil industry, which requires that scale to work, if you guys will help continue to turn waste food and biomass into a format that will be conducive to being a fuel, we are making units that will make

electricity we started to do it for the 4 billion people who don't have it but others may find this more convenient. we do not have to make your fuels. why take a 20th-century -- a 21st century fuel and use it the 19th century methods? my fantasy job is what you wanted to solve the problems that will overwhelm us. 23 companies adopted 23 schools. they have had quite a bit of

growth last year. we have 43 cities around the united states that run there and then around march. we did our finals last year. >> what will you be focused on the? what problems will the be solving next year? >> we are focused on the crisis and the evolving. although it has been in and out over the course of the years, the world is galvanizing around big problems today. corporations need to create jobs. i believe there is an urgency

and to say that this is a problem. we are seeing that in no way we have seen before. i think that 2010 is the year when this will happen. i think we will see a very rapid adoption of innovation, inviting people from all over the world to be involved. i think that is the only way that some of these problems will get attacked.

as these processes become adopted on a greater scale, we are seeing big problems. we run problems -- >> someone posted a challenge on your web site. >> we work with organizations that run the gamut from procter and gamble to the international aids vaccine initiative. there is an art and science to taking a problem and making a well-defined problems out of that. it is kind of that average -- that at age -- that addage. you might have 100 individuals trying to solve the challenge of

the same time. we are allowing them to assemble into teens and teens can find each other in aggregate to find better business -- building materials and trying to find a better material to avoid fingerprints on the front of your pga. -- pga -- pda. we think that is a solution to get 7 billion people working on the problems that matter. >> what is next? for us, 2010 is about going green. the entertainment industry is going through a change. we make a product and put out a disk and put it out in retail. in our case, would provide a

peripheral that you have to physically picked up at the store and play. if you look at the games that are being created today and becoming popular, you'll see that games are going on-line. a great example is it -- is that all the games in japan, it is all about going on line. today, most of the business is still in the packaged goods business. you're starting to see the emergence of face but gaining where you no longer have to go to the store to buy a game. you're seeing games like world war craft with over 11 million people playing and their subscribers to that and there is no physical good that they need to buy to be able to play that game.

i think that our businesses have to change. consumer behavior is starting to change. the american consumer is more accustomed to going to the store to buy their games. we're starting to see that changing we're seeing that accelerate very quickly. you have the shift from packaged to digital almost overnight. i do not know how long it will take for the gaming industry to happen, but i think you will see that evolution of the think it will be allowed to fester than people think. the first thing that we have to do is to get people connected. it is a very basic thing for people who play video consul

games. our number one challenge is to get everybody connected. for us, it is about a poll. people have to buy this game because -- it means they have to go out to buy some kind of equipment that will get my consul connected, but it has to be great game played as exciting enough to get people to play. for us, as an example, guitar hero has been releasing downloadable content for the last two years which are just double the will songs that you can buy to play the game.

it is really about trying to figure out how we evolved and how do we get consumers to want to connect online and then once they are there, how can we deliver an experience to them that will have them now pay for that feature. >> i want to stick with what you were doing. there is this trend throughout history that many new technologies have their adoption driven by fun of and to ask where you see your technology of fun going elsewhere and we look at the week. do you see the potential in socially acceptable areas? >> i do. i am not personally working on any of those, but i am intrigued by those.

one of the great things about gaming is that the mechanics of gaming are extremely engaging. you get people who want to come back and play with. a game like farm bill is on line and it is played on facebook. 40 million people log on to play that game. you look at the type of engagement that these games can bring to people, there is very

little bit you can do. you take those mechanics and have the you create things that are engaging. how do you take those gaming mechanics and apply them? >> the military is actually funding the development so that they can encourage and train the next generation of people who will eventually be in the military. it your teaching people what is like to be in certain environments if they are on the battlefield. another example of that is fitness, so that many people have probably heard of wii fit.

the fascinating thing about that game is the fact that most people hate fitness. it is just not fun. the majority of people find it not fun. how you create an experience that people actually want to do. -- want to do? it is creating that experience that is creative and fun and it gets them to do an activity that they normally would not want to do. another interesting example is in the medical field, where doctors are performing surgery by robots and the doctors now control the surgery's through a couple of joysticks. they find that a video game

mimics that. it is all about these little meinecke movements the your controlling while watching the screen. they discovered that that is a fantastic way to train doctors to do these types of surgeries. and there is a tremendous amount of applications that we have learned about engaging users. you have given me and nesting nightmare image of the future of the industrial complex where someone -- all of these things are possible. >> you talk about the innovation process being about to go through a new phase of productivity increase. what is it about next year that makes that a turning point here? is that something you have

learned over the past few years? >> there are a few things that have converged. the unable month of the internet to create a way to communicate effectively is incredibly important. those things have created an in fertile atmosphere. they have become industrial strength solutions. the second is social networking. the trust systems are evolving. the third is a work system that is involved.

this is the free agent nation. they create a new kind of innovation. i think that the last is this the emergence -- there is this emergence of a crowd sourcing as illegitimate government will tool. you have to give people -- good people all over the world talking about what they care about. these are forms of group structuring. make this a possibility, now in a way that it is -- it has not been in the past. whether it is looking at

capitalistic terms, or the fact that companies need to continue to innovate, did not for -- not for profit still has the disease to treat. a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. this shatters the model of the last hundred years. >> i suppose that you can look at this health care debate and the thing that everyone is worried about is that we get further cost of escalation -- further cost escalation. when you look at the scientific

possibilities, whether it be the use of mobile phone technology were some of the famous that you are talking about, it seems to be a fundamentally different picture that you campaign in terms of better health outcomes. it is this for to start happening? what changes need to be put in place to make this technological dream a reality? >> i am not an economist or a policy person, but i will tell you that listening to this never-ending debate, it is astounding that one part of all of their brilliant, well thought out analysis, where in that great debate can they so

accurately predict we will be in 30 years vista and financial models? >> do they embrace the one part of this human experiment that we are in? i could imagine that if all of these people involved in this debate were having the debate in 1920 about the cost of health care getting out of control, they would have predicted that we just got through this massive polio academic, but technology got us to where we build these iron lungs. something might have affected the great analysis. they did not know that the vaccination would come about.

today, they have this great set of predictions about the crisis and the cost of health care in 20 or 30 years. today, in the united states, 30% of all reimbursement is directly or indirectly to die due this. people are 17 times more likely to have been blindness or heart disease. right now, it is an epidemic. everything about what we're doing is creating this massive problem. i guess that maybe i am the optimist. it is inconceivable to me that long before 30 years from today

, we will watch that one out -- what that one out. all the great debate, today, takes a snapshot of our current tools and where is the debate about foreign research into wiping out the cancer, alzheimer's and diabetes. >> are you talking about having some kind of manhattan project mentality on these areas? >> when we get serious about solving problems, we solve them. it is time to get serious. the technology is right around the corner it will not only give everybody a way healthy lifestyle, it will give us --

it will be more cost-effective. this is the consequence of wiping out that which we are worried about. >> please, be getting some ideas to through to our panelists. you talk about the biofuels possibility. we were talking yesterday about the potential for the food crisis to be solved through technology. we rented pad gives the other week about [unintelligible] the basic calculation is that by 2015, the world will have to produce twice as much food.

his biology going to be the answer to that crisis? >> if you are asking whether by eligible provide as food, i'll have to say yes. i wodon't know where else we would get it. i think that the answer is mostly land use is going to play a bigger role. water usage will play a big role. 7% of the world's fresh water resources sees this falling. i am not want to say there are bigger issues -- i am not going to say that there are bigger issues. they have to change the way that they use water in their economy.

that holds true in the u.s. as well. we do not as a surly use it as intelligently as we could, -- we do not necessarily use it as intelligently as the could. i think we will have these drug into corn forests and change the route system of corn. the amount of resources does not really concern me so much. whether we are a bit more clever, if we had all the available, and we're still relying on oil for heating and

transportation and if you believe that carbon is important in warming, if we have all that food available and we're still producing lots of energy and materials from oil, very rapidly, our kropp goes to hell -- our crop goes to hell. >> to raise an interesting thought for me. i come from britain where there has still been been as successful trial of a genetically modified crop because the protesters have trashed the field every time. will this go to china were indifferent -- where a

different the approach would play out? >> of want to be able to follow what is going on. we can read and write dna with increasing ease. the feature of that is that now, students participating in a competition the design new organisms and try to pull pieces of the shelf to snap together. i am fortunate to be a judge for this. i am amazed every year of what the students come up with.

the last four years for cambridge, the year before the it was in beijing pennsylvania was the year before that. -- was in beijing, and sylvania was the year before that. the natural question is if they can build pathogens? the answer that usually give is that, yes, you should be worried, but there is nothing you can do about it. we also have to be paying attention to who is using and how they are using it. as is naturally the response in this town in particular, they

want to regulate that technology. they will derive that by 2020. the world has changed and innovation has changed. the sickbed of biology, playing with these genes has created an incentive to design dna sequences from scratch. that is the world that we leave it -- that we live them. -- that we leap -- that we live in. >> i want to say that i am a great fan.

i read a piece that said that was the city was the mother of invention. actually, it is the opposite. i want to ask the panel if you agree with that. has that equation shifted? >> you first. >> no, i want to prevent a gasbag answer. is the question is should we be focusing on anything other than the critical technologies that relate to whether it is food and water and energy around the world? was up the question? -- was that the question? >> not necessarily.

>> if the question is -- i think what the world is finally coming to deal with the fact that we are in a race between catastrophe on a global scale in many dimensions we're in a race between catastrophe in an education in general. if it can continue to stay one step ahead of catastrophe, it will move. the result was a dark side. the first guy that figured out how to make a flame was popular

but in a bird bath house. it could be used as a weapon. around the world, whether we like it or not, be -- we are reducing the size and scale of an organization that needs to be put together to have a dramatic impact on the world. a few kids in a basement somewhere to make this pathogen. so, we are in a race that requires that we develop better technologies faster and deploy them more responsibly and i think that the only way we will do that is to educate the next generation way better and we faster. you only needed a few people and worker bees. now, to have a meaningful career, everybody has to

participate. 7 billion people cannot be recipients. they have to be part of the solution and that is when to require an advanced technologies to be properly developed. that requires education. >> we have another question. to stand here. -- just stand here. >> i work for the intimate corp. four numbers. do you think our current intellectual rights regime is going to help us with innovation? at its worst, it to be a the keeper -- it can be a gate keeper. is ipr or to help us for will be

a hindrance? >> i am certainly looking at the u.s.. i did not think it is on -- any other statement that it is broken in dated at the very least. my view is that the system this setup today, we are probably a sign up to protect industries that made massive capital investments, but as it was said, we have too much work to do i do not know how many people noticed, but if for some sign of all patents will fail. you put in place a system that does not accelerate innovation. maybe it did 50 years ago, but today, it dramatically dampens

innovation in favor of business models that are protected more than they should be use. >> i am partial responsible for him, giving the term open source biology. -- for promulgating the term open source biology. there is a lot about software that makes open source work. my company was started in my garage to test the idea that i could order jeans over the internet and still innovate on a small scale in my house.

this is possible in my house. the patent that i applied for in order to engage in any kind of market as cost several times what the actual inhalation cost. buying molecules and moving them around really does not add up to much. it is all up paying for the patent. that is a huge barrier to tried to engage in the marketplace. mashal -- the challenge in biotech is that each team has a patent on it. it could be something that they actually invented. there were bits and pieces of many different genes. it is still incredibly expensive. if i had 10 of those semi

product, it would be 10 times more. this is already standing in the way of innovation for me or anybody who wants to play with jeans -- jeans -- genes. if sars 2.0 show is up, there is still no vaccine for it. -- shows up, there is still no vaccine for it. when it shows up, what is the innovation structured or to look like to build a vaccine for the bug, given that the thing that we have already face has yet to have a vaccine ready for it.

we're in the middle of the crisis, it will be hard to fix that innovation structure on the fly. we need to be thinking ahead much more that we are today. >> several of the founding fathers were opposed -- >> what would help us respond quickly? >> the question is, the reason for it that ms. to guarantee investment. why would i build something new of someone in china can make it better, faster and cheaper ones i have done the work and --